It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WARNING: Wikileaks CIA Document May Be FAKE

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
And I didn't even have to go any farther than the CIA logo.

Here is a closeup of the leaked document logo, sourced from the document itself here:

Leaked Document

Closeup of Logo Image:



Right click and "View Image"

Now here is the actual CIA logo, taken from their own web page here, and zoomed a bit in, just with my Firefox web browser:

www.cia.gov...

Closeup up Actual CIA Logo Image:



And here are the obvious errors. Red arrow indicates the missing white radial fill, and all yellow arrows point out the crappy edge blending, and more:

Leaked logo with obvious flaws pointed out Image:



Right Click and "view image"

With today's technology, and practically everyone having a copy of photoshop, people really need to watch out for fakes, especially at a place like wikileaks.

But jeez, they really need to do a better job than this if they are going to try and fake something!

Now if someone wants to research CIA logo history, and show that the leaked document contains an older logo, then great. But I'd say you're going to have a pretty rough time, considering the leaked "document" is dated March 11, 2010, and released by Wikileaks on March 26, 2010.


Not very likely the CIA would have changed their logo in the last 2 weeks.

Either that or you would have to show that they use different versions of their logo for documents and the website. I doubt it, but hey have it.

For me, I wouldn't trust that leaked document further than a toss into the nearest round file.

In fact, I'll even venture to say that the most obvious error- the missing white radial fill- could be a sign to other intelligence officers who know, if this was done by the CIA themselves, so that they can differentiate between the real and the fake in case of some psyops here.

Bottom line, no go for me. I don't believe that leaked document.

[edit on Fri Mar 26th 2010 by TrueAmerican]




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
It could possibly be the means the CIA has been looking for!
Documents to discredit and create mistrust in Wikileaks...



[edit on 26/3/10 by spearhead]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Are you saying that when you create a logo, that it magically snaps together and blur lines disappear? This isn't a photo, it's a logo created with a program that puts images together and blends colors. I don't think you can say it is not authentic because the logo has blurred pixels.


+14 more 
posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I dont see the same as you. Many companies/agencies have variations to their logo depending on the medium it is being represented. You took the logo off the website, which has a bit of shadow and other tweaking to it - for that medium.

CIA Logos

The logo on the document is for a flat medium: paper.


Also, did you properly resize the logo? And you know that resizing incorrectly can distort and misrepresent the image, right?

I didnt read the document. I am just commenting on the graphics of the seal. I see nothing wrong here. Different variations for different mediums: paper vs. web


CIA SEAL

[edit on March 26th 2010 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Just because the CIA logo at their Web site has a white radiant light on it doesn't mean it's the official logo. The Wiki page for the CIA has no white radiant on the logo, neither does their giant logo in their building:



And the pixelation could easily be and probably is from compressing the file to make it smaller.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Well, there is ofcourse color difrences on difrent paper types, ie. Gloss and Matt paper.

And ofourse an Digitaly made logog and a photo of a document..

hue and contrast levels etc...

But, I do see see clear-cut squares at the right side where the 'flash' from a camera appears to be.....Maybe they just removed the camera flash?

Either way, as stated above, these might just infact be another attempt to destroy Free Information, and that is axactly what I am going to call it if it turns out tis is all fake, i can not imagine Wikileaks would create this poorly scam.. This is by intent if it is fake ...



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I'm confused. If someone were to place the CIA logo onto a document they would just cut and paste the whole thing. They wouldn't take apart and put it all back together like you're saying with the birds beak. And who's to say they don't have a number off different logos with small differences. I doubt all their logos have the same shiny glare of their website version. But like I said, I'm confused.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Or then it could be a CIA counter on Wikileaks to discredit them. I really think that if Wikileaks wanted to fake documents they would fake something a bit more dangerous. Im now looking into this



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
I'm afraid everyone is right. The OP has't found anything to discredit Wikileaks or anything to say the Documant is fake.

Anything that is posted on the Web is in Digital Format. Anything posted on the web is subject to interference and noise and in most cases Artifacts that are Added or Subtrcted from the Original. Resolution of Images is another factor and Most images are reduced in resolution in order to make sure the Page loads fast and without too many errors.

If I uploaded a Photo in a resolution 1/4 of the origianl and you printed it out and then compared the Uploaded image to the Original one, I would say you would find all sorts of anomolies that don't match.

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
Also, did you properly resize the logo? And you know that resizing incorrectly can distort and misrepresent the image, right?


Hey, don't take my word for it. I didn't do anything other than zoom in on what's there. Go do it yourself. That's why I provided the sources.

Also, I might point out that NONE of your sources of images are directly from the CIA itself.

But hold on a minute. We can cure this problem REAL quick. I will email the CIA and simply ask them to authenticate the document.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


That's the way to do it..
Call the CIA, ask for the Head of the Leaked Docuiments department and then ask if the Leaked document in question, is in fact an Original....

I wish I had of thought of that...




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
The CIA Seal




Interpretation of the CIA Seal
The American Eagle is the national bird and is a
symbol of strength and alertness.

The radiating spokes of the compass rose depict
the convergence of intelligence data from all areas of the world
to a central point.

The shield is the standard symbol of defense.
Intelligence provided to our policymakers is to help defend our country.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 provided for a seal of office for CIA. The design of the seal was approved and set forth on 17 February 1950 in President Harry Truman's Executive Order 10111.

In this Order, the CIA seal is described in heraldic terms as follows:

SHIELD: Argent, a compass rose of sixteen points gules.
CREST: On a wreath argent and gules an American bald eagle's head erased proper.

Below the shield on a gold color scroll the inscription "United States of America" in red letters and encircling the shield and crest at the top the inscription "Central Intelligence Agency" in white letters.

All on a circular blue background with a narrow gold edge.


Again, the differences have to do with the medium in which it is used.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
TA, I hate to admit it bro
but u may have jumped the gun on this one


u've been doing this long enough to know
u really need multiple confirmations to really
be sure and u only gave one and not a very
good one at that.

Now I hope wikileaks don't sue you
for slander and libel

best wishes, keep up the faith and the fight



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Email sent.

I want to hear it from them that this document is either real or fake. After that, we can go from there.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Hopefully without people freaking out, I will tell you that I use the CIA library for a lot of my school work (research purposes). I see the logo all the time. I see absolutely nothing off about the logo on the document.



[edit on March 26th 2010 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
From the CIA ws: files.abovetopsecret.com...

Maginfied logo: files.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm no image expert but the artifacts seem common when one magnifies digital images.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Yeah, and you just proved my point. Magnify those images and you don't see the obvious crappy edge lines in the blue.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Email sent.

I want to hear it from them that this document is either real or fake. After that, we can go from there.


TA ... please tell me you didn't just email the CIA to ask them if the wikileaks document is real?

Buddy, what are you thinking?

[edit on 26 Mar 2010 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Yeah, and you just proved my point. Magnify those images and you don't
see the obvious crappy edge lines in the blue.


There is no way they would match. As I have said numerous times
there are different variations of logos created for different mediums - print verse web. Many companies have this.

[edit on March 26th 2010 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
To quick to jump my friend. greeneyedleo has it all right.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join